good thread idea/Iraq War Policy Debate

[Support [BDS]!]

Support [BDS]!

Keep the servers up!

May Goal: $100.00
Due Date: May 31
Total Receipts: $0.00
PayPal Fees: $0.00
Net Balance: $0.00
Below Goal: $100.00
Site Currency: USD

 0%

• BDS Clan Roster
• BDS Servers
• Sourcebans
• Picture Gallery

 

[[BDS] DEADMAN]

So the Iraq debate is back on top again, this time Gen. petraeus (who if you dont know he is, he is the Commanding General for Multi-national force Iraq/MNF-I, which means he oversees all US forces in Iraq) is heading into Washington DC to prepare for the $100B request for the war machine.  Given what Ive seen and everything thats gone on over the last 5 years, I truthfully dont see any end to this ordeal.  I volunteered to go to Iraq to try and contribute to the effort, but once there you truly see how dismal the situation is and the fact that it doesnt seem as though the Iraqis want to help themselves, much less us.  thats just my opinion.  I would like to see all those guys and gals come home and then our country can begin focusing on itself, which is truly where all that money should be going, because I honestly dont think Iraq is going anywhere.  anyway, heres the rub:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347150,00.html

[[BDS] ElephantRider]

Declare "Mission Accomplished" again and bring them home. I don't see it happening until the oil contracts are secured in Chevron/Mobil's hands with the reserves safely privatized though.

[[BDS] DEADMAN]

thats another thing about Iraq.  People say we are there to take control of the oil fields, but even if we did do that, which I dont see any arab aloowing without a fight of some sort, how far are the prices REALLY going to drop?  they hybrid game needs to step up.  I would buy a car that runs on electricity if it meant saving $400.00 a month /$4800 a year.  If you think about it, we pull out of Iraq now, civil war erupts, economy collapses, etc.  (not that I really care anyway because nobudy would give a shit if that happened here) and if we stay we continue to lose American lives, make Camp Fallujah (thats where I was) a duty station and keep troops in country for the next 15 years.  there is no good solution  but I say we at least take care of our own and get them the fuck out, fuck what happens there.  We couldnt do it in 5 years and $3T, then theres not much else we can do.  I only ponder what America could do with 3T dollars.  thats healthcare for everybody and bigger school budgets.  but I guess the government focuses on whats best for us.

[[BDS] ElephantRider]

The gas prices don't matter much to the oil companies as long as people will pay them. What matters is getting exclusive long-term contracts locked in on those big ass oil reserves. I agree that it seems ludicrous that things like solar and even long range plug-in cars are labeled as 'pipe dreams' because they are too expensive, yet we go on to spend $1T on Iraq and other adventures in the middle east. The only thing that could actually change anything would be $10/gal gas.

[[BDS] The Rock]

The gas prices don't matter much to the oil companies as long as people will pay them. What matters is getting exclusive long-term contracts locked in on those big ass oil reserves. I agree that it seems ludicrous that things like solar and even long range plug-in cars are labeled as 'pipe dreams' because they are too expensive, yet we go on to spend $1T on Iraq and other adventures in the middle east. The only thing that could actually change anything would be $10/gal gas.

Ouch. But aint that the truth... 

It always hurts or gets worse before it gets better, doesn't it? 

[[BDS] JoMama]

 I highly recommend you people go rent/netflix the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car".....that is if ya REALLY wanna get pissed off... 

[[BDS] Gurney (BEER)]

Well, here how I fell about Iraq.....and American War policies in general. 

First and Foremost I support the Troops.   

I feel like there is just too much going on behind the scenes that we as a people don't about.  If the Gov. would just man up and say here are the real reasons, the real facts as to why we need to do these things.......I would be more inclined to support our policies regarding war.  It's really all the double talking that pisses me off and makes me unsupportive. 

Secondly, our War technology is great.......but not enough of it goes to developing and deploying cutting edge defense and armor systems to Troops in the filed.  With the support infrastructure, no troop in the field should want for gear, but too many seem to all too often. 

Lastly, I want to see more support for  the family's of the dead, veterans, and wounded.  This is still something I find terribly lacking and if we are to be a warring nation, these facilities must be top notch.

I dunno just my .02 as someone who didn't end up going over.

[[BDS] ElephantRider]

If the Gov. would just man up and say here are the real reasons, the real facts as to why we need to do these things.......I would be more inclined to support our policies regarding war. 

I'm thinking that they don't come outright with the real reasons because people would be less likely to support them.

[[BDS] The Rock]

if we stay we continue to lose American lives, make Camp Fallujah (thats where I was) a duty station and keep troops in country for the next 15 years.  there is no good solution  but I say we at least take care of our own and get them the fuck out, fuck what happens there.  We couldnt do it in 5 years and $3T, then theres not much else we can do.  I only ponder what America could do with 3T dollars.  thats healthcare for everybody and bigger school budgets.  but I guess the government focuses on whats best for us.

I'm no war history buff, but isn't that what happened in Vietnam?  Wasn't the bottom line that the government finally pulled troops out and cut our losses after years of fruitless campaign?  Wasn't it kind of a pride/ego thing that 'well, we started this war, and we'd lose face if we pull out now, so we might as well stick it out'??  I could be wrong about that, but if that was the case, Iraq seems like a parallel to Vietnam. 

If we can't "win" the war (and you KNOW you can't win it) then what's wrong with cutting your losses and admitting you were wrong?      I'd agree with Deadman and Gurney, in that we need to cut our losses and start spending money on domestic issues/closer to home... $3 trillion, plus another $100 billion?? wow, with that money I could have souped up my compy and bought COD4 by now.....see what the hell all this hoopla is about.     

in all seriousness though, that region of the world has always been volatile, and we havn't changed that a bit.  We might as well leave it alone now that we've stirred the pot up enough. 

[[BDS] DEADMAN]

plus theres an old quote that says something about "in 1000 years the arab nation has never been conquered" so I dont see where its going.  The holy war between the jews and the arabs that has existed for hundreds of years over a piece of land is something that they can settle between them.  If Americans are killed over that, then by all means find those responsible, but stay the fuck out of the fight.  IF control over the oil fields is the main objective, it seems assinine that we would make those  unneccessary sacrifices (american deaths, war funds, stupid gas prices) to get them, then why not focus that effort on developing better transportation methods like the hybrid?  no gas=no emissions, better for the environment, for one.  no gas, no fight for control over oil.  obviously we would still need oil for large machines, but america is solely the largest consumer of oil simply based on personal vehicles. 

[lordjedi]

if we stay we continue to lose American lives, make Camp Fallujah (thats where I was) a duty station and keep troops in country for the next 15 years.  there is no good solution  but I say we at least take care of our own and get them the fuck out, fuck what happens there.  We couldnt do it in 5 years and $3T, then theres not much else we can do.  I only ponder what America could do with 3T dollars.  thats healthcare for everybody and bigger school budgets.  but I guess the government focuses on whats best for us.

I'm no war history buff, but isn't that what happened in Vietnam?  Wasn't the bottom line that the government finally pulled troops out and cut our losses after years of fruitless campaign?  Wasn't it kind of a pride/ego thing that 'well, we started this war, and we'd lose face if we pull out now, so we might as well stick it out'??  I could be wrong about that, but if that was the case, Iraq seems like a parallel to Vietnam. 

Except that in the case of Vietnam, we now know that we were in fact winning.  We know that the North Vietnamese knew they couldn't win.  They weren't even trying to win the war, they were trying to win a war of propaganda.  As long as body bags kept coming home, they knew the American people would eventually fold and want us out.  They knew that they could just continue to throw bodies at us and it wouldn't matter.  They knew that eventually they would lose, but they hoped (and were correct at the time) that we would fold before that happened.

The problem with pulling out of Iraq is that it won't just cause an even bigger problem in the region.  It would be a sign to every terrorist that they won.  And if they believe they've won, there's no reason for them to stop at Iraq.  They could easily continue to push out of every region of the world with the knowledge that with enough dead bodies, we'll eventually give up and go home.  And then they'll come here.

Wasn't the latest battle that was fought over there fought mostly by the Iraqi army?  And didn't Muqtada al-Sadr just tell his guys to stop fighting?  The only thing left is for him to disband his army.  Seems like the Iraqi's are starting to handle their own defense just fine.

As long as Petreus doesn't ask for another troop surge, I'm totally ok with the way things are going.  According to a report I heard yesterday, tours are going to be reduced from 15 months to 12 months.  To me, that's a good sign.  It's apparent that we are making progress, even if it isn't happening fast enough for the 30 second attention span Americans.

plus theres an old quote that says something about "in 1000 years the arab nation has never been conquered" so I dont see where its going.  The holy war between the jews and the arabs that has existed for hundreds of years over a piece of land is something that they can settle between them.

Never heard that quote before, but this wars been going on for thousands of years, not just hundreds.  The arabs did have us involved at an early point in our history when they were attacking our ships back in the 18th century.  So this has been going on for a long time.

"You know what the business community thinks of you? They think that a hundred years ago you were living in tents out here in the desert chopping each other's heads off and that's where you'll be in another hundred years"

[[BDS] ElephantRider]

Except that in the case of Vietnam, we now know that we were in fact winning.  We know that the North Vietnamese knew they couldn't win.  They weren't even trying to win the war, they were trying to win a war of propaganda.  As long as body bags kept coming home, they knew the American people would eventually fold and want us out.  They knew that they could just continue to throw bodies at us and it wouldn't matter.  They knew that eventually they would lose, but they hoped (and were correct at the time) that we would fold before that happened.

But it would have taken years before that happened, and even more massive devastation. We knew the ARVN were worthless, and it seems impossible that we would ever be able to root out the VC. In the end, it didn't even matter since the supposed Soviet takeover of the entire region didn't really materialize.

The problem with pulling out of Iraq is that it won't just cause an even bigger problem in the region.  It would be a sign to every terrorist that they won.  And if they believe they've won, there's no reason for them to stop at Iraq.  They could easily continue to push out of every region of the world with the knowledge that with enough dead bodies, we'll eventually give up and go home.  And then they'll come here.

I don't think they'll stop if we "win" in Iraq since the whole reason they are attacking us is because we are occupying their countries. We can't stop terrorism with military force, only with coordinated international police work. I don't think there is a way to stop them entirely, but so far military escalation and occupation doesn't seem to be doing the trick.

Wasn't the latest battle that was fought over there fought mostly by the Iraqi army?  And didn't Muqtada al-Sadr just tell his guys to stop fighting?  The only thing left is for him to disband his army.  Seems like the Iraqi's are starting to handle their own defense just fine.

Yes, they made some attacks in Basra, but we still had to bail them out at the end, and the gov't had to ask for the cease fire from al-Sadr because the militia is too strong, so basically it was a failure. The only way they're going to disband is if they are offered amnesty, which Maliki is taking a hard line on, but his party seems willing to negotiate. So far it seems like they just might have to give in since the Mahdi army is probably the biggest stumbling block to progress. Well, that and the Iraqi gov't itself, I don't see a whole lot of incentive for them to become independent when we're paying their meal-ticket.

[lordjedi]

Except that in the case of Vietnam, we now know that we were in fact winning.  We know that the North Vietnamese knew they couldn't win.  They weren't even trying to win the war, they were trying to win a war of propaganda.  As long as body bags kept coming home, they knew the American people would eventually fold and want us out.  They knew that they could just continue to throw bodies at us and it wouldn't matter.  They knew that eventually they would lose, but they hoped (and were correct at the time) that we would fold before that happened.

But it would have taken years before that happened, and even more massive devastation. We knew the ARVN were worthless, and it seems impossible that we would ever be able to root out the VC. In the end, it didn't even matter since the supposed Soviet takeover of the entire region didn't really materialize.

From what I heard, we were about 3 months away from winning in Vietnam.  That was from documents that were released by the Vietnamese govt in the past 10 years.

The soviets may not have taken over the region, but Communism seems to have a pretty firm hold.  North Korea, Vietnam, and China.  China's economy may be doing very well, but that's at the cost of govt crackdowns on anyone that doesn't follow the party line.

The problem with pulling out of Iraq is that it won't just cause an even bigger problem in the region.  It would be a sign to every terrorist that they won.  And if they believe they've won, there's no reason for them to stop at Iraq.  They could easily continue to push out of every region of the world with the knowledge that with enough dead bodies, we'll eventually give up and go home.  And then they'll come here.

I don't think they'll stop if we "win" in Iraq since the whole reason they are attacking us is because we are occupying their countries. We can't stop terrorism with military force, only with coordinated international police work. I don't think there is a way to stop them entirely, but so far military escalation and occupation doesn't seem to be doing the trick.

We can stop it with military force.  Unfortunately, it's not politically correct military force.  Israel seems to do a pretty good job with military response, but they're always attacked politically because they respond with 10 or 100x more force than what was used on them.

Also, again, they attacked us before we were occupying their countries (18th century, not Al Qaeda, but radical Muslims in general), so there's no reason to believe that they won't continue the attacks.  We just won't be as close as we are right now.

Wasn't the latest battle that was fought over there fought mostly by the Iraqi army?  And didn't Muqtada al-Sadr just tell his guys to stop fighting?  The only thing left is for him to disband his army.  Seems like the Iraqi's are starting to handle their own defense just fine.

Yes, they made some attacks in Basra, but we still had to bail them out at the end, and the gov't had to ask for the cease fire from al-Sadr because the militia is too strong, so basically it was a failure. The only way they're going to disband is if they are offered amnesty, which Maliki is taking a hard line on, but his party seems willing to negotiate. So far it seems like they just might have to give in since the Mahdi army is probably the biggest stumbling block to progress. Well, that and the Iraqi gov't itself, I don't see a whole lot of incentive for them to become independent when we're paying their meal-ticket.
[/quote]

According to this http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/31/iraq.main/index.html the Iranians may have had some involvement, but it's not clear beyond that.  Either way, I don't see it as a failure.  Giving them amnesty would be the worst thing they could do.  Giving them amnesty and then seeing them disband will only give them the opportunity to reform into different groups with the same agenda.

[[BDS] DEADMAN]

based on what I saw over there, it doesnt seem to be one big inter-connected sect who is meticulously  plotting these attacks.  It seems to be a shit load of street thugs who are convinced by the bad guys to fire at americans for invading their land because they think we are there to oppress them.  Also you have to take into consideration that the majority of the population is poor, which means if you are an iraqi with a wife and 6 kids you are willing to do just about anything to feed them.  So if you are approached by a guy with a ski mask on who says "plant this bomb under this road and I will give you 500 dollars" they look at that as a chance to escape poverty, even for a brief amount of time.  not only that, but if that same guy in a ski mask threatens to kill you and your family if you dont, that offers quite a bit of incentive.  There will always be somebody who is willing to dissent democracy.  Arabs, simply by genetics are apposed to democracy based on how they are raised and what they believe in.  I dont agree with some of their customs or beliefs, but thats how life is.  Its a bummer that the american government can accept that for what it is and let other countries take care of its own problems.  Weve spread our resources to thin and now it seems like we wont be able to take care of our own if we continue to babysit other countries who have problems they are not willing or are unable to address.  As far as vietnam goes, I wasnt there, wasnt around when it was going on, but I think that was an unnecessary squabble we should have avoided and could have.  when youve got places like somalia where genocide is being committed and problems arise on a mass scale, then if they ask for aid we should provide it.  The US should be able to provide assistance to countries for a short period of time, at least to allow the country to regain control of itself.  The middle east seems to have its own agenda that we keep trying to change, hoping the outcome will better suit our intentions.  At this point I think we should recognize that theres not a whole lot left we can do, withdraw, and focus on the safety of our nation.   

[[BDS] Oleander]

Im probably in for some fun, weeee